Building intelligence

Building intelligence is the subject of increasing interest for designers and developers of new buildings. This is especially the case for those having either long-term occupiers such as hotels or corporate headquarters, or diverse functions such as shopping malls. There are many different definitions of intelligent buildings, some of which extend to the operation of the building envelope as well as the building services.

Generally, the objective of building intelligence is to improve energy management, increase occupant comfort and productivity, to reduce whole-life costs, and to provide greater adaptability to physical or organisational change.

The availability of intelligent IT networks in most buildings has created considerable opportunities to address these issues as part of the overall building services installation. However, for most projects, the current approaches to services procurement tend not to fully exploit the opportunities available for system sharing and improved processing of data to produce these performance improvements.

The following article loosely applies conventional problem-solving techniques with the aim of:

• define the problem;

• outline the causes of the problem;

• discuss what should be done;

• identify qualitatively the 'low fruit' that may return best value from building intelligence, given the limited progress to date in developing compatible systems.

What is the problem ?
The problem (or improvement opportunity) is that most buildings are relatively 'dumb', however smart the various services are that are installed. Many systems incorporate very powerful technology, however they do not generally talk to each other, or even acknowledge their mutual existence. This leads to a multiplicity of monitoring and control networks throughout the building, often running side-by-side in costly, dedicated containment, culminating in 'the control room' that may resemble the television sales area in a large department store.

This problem can easily escalate after commissioning and operator training is complete. Even with relatively user-friendly software, it is impractical to expect a building management team to remain fully familiar with the functionality of the many different systems, features, passwords, report-generators and hardware. The result is that many systems are switched either off or to some less-than-optimal default setting. Reports are not generated, operational improvements are not made, occupant complaints increase and everyone involved in the project becomes frustrated and disillusioned. In these instances, the only available solution may be to buy-in the expensive consultancy from the provider of essential systems to achieve an acceptable performance level.

Causes and effect
There are a number of factors responsible for causing these problems:

• Technological progress can easily leave behind the operators unless careful attention is paid to the man/machine interface and training. Perversely, modern microprocessors are so reliable that, when human intervention is needed, the chances are that there will be no one available who can remember what to do.

• Functionality escalation as systems become increasingly complex to address the changing patterns of building occupancy, statutory regulations and codes of practice, calls for energy conservation and architectural 'statement-making.'

• Functionality over-reach and overlap, for example, the competition between the building energy management system and lighting control systems to control window blinds. Issues such as these are partially driven by the marketing push for systems to provide control functionality beyond the scope of the system's original purpose, 'because the technology is there'. For example absence detection' provided by passive infrared detectors (pirs), commonly used to switch off lights could also be used to override other environmental controls, provided that any side effects have been thought-through in the design.

• Conventional procurement methods are a considerable barrier to gaining maximum long-term benefits from building intelligence. Specifications are commonly written as procurement packages for individual systems, often with careful attention to the interfaces between packages but with little scope or motivation for integration. This results in the proliferation of networks and pc head-end problems as outlined above.

What is the solution?
The key to the solution is an improved process for procurement of the majority of the building services monitoring and control functions. This is facilitated by the existing capability to install an affordable resilient Ethernet Internet Protocol (IP) network as a platform onto which the new level of building intelligence can be integrated, together with the client's data and telecommunications service.

The intelligent building approach is to integrate, via computer software, the various technologies with the management processes (figure 1). In this way, it is possible to invoke the appropriate operator responses to whatever events, incidents and alarms arise from any and all of the connected sub-systems.

If building intelligence is going to be integrated, the following preparatory work needs to be undertaken ahead of the development of the outline specification, preferably led by a client operations person and supported by a specialist systems integrator:

• Analyse the safety, security, comfort, communication and business needs, together with any identifiable risks.

• Envisage and document the management processes, procedures and people that will be needed to support the business needs as outlined above.

• Carefully consider the relevant services functionalities. Pick out the prime basic functions required rather than their marketed additional capabilities.

• Identify which functions have a piggy back relationship with others, and which ones really need to stand alone (eg fire alarms).

From this analysis, it should become clear which systems and technologies can be integrated, related to business or functional need. Given current procurement trends, the integrated solution may not be the easiest way forward with manufacturers and contractors involved in traditionally managed packages potentially seeing some of their products pared down to a basic lean functionality. Furthermore, the resilient IP network will be required earlier in the construction programme, so that sub-systems can be integrated as and when they are commissioned.

A specialist systems integrator should also be engaged to take the responsibility for defining the full requirements for system integration, and for project-managing the implementation. The systems integrator should be properly vendor-assessed, and it should be ascertained that any software developed and licensed to a client is open protocol, to avoid the risk of over-dependency.

An integrated solution
So what are the benefits of a properly integrated solution? For a start it should result in the procurement of less technology, with each sub-system specified only for its basic function. Decisions will have been made about which data to leave within the sub-system, and which is needed for central monitoring, management analysis, reporting, forensic investigation and other purposes.

Very significant benefits could accrue from the capability for monitoring and controlling the component status and environmental conditions of the various sub-systems. In particular, this monitoring can be used in connection with the assessment of service quality and availability under a PFI contract. An additional benefit is the ability to analyse and present the information using familiar programmes such as Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft Word, rather than the proprietary reporting tools integrated into various sub-systems.

Problem is solved?
At the end of the day the question is: how do you know if the problem is solved? Compared with the multiplicity of sub-system networks and head end/pc monitors, if an IP-based intelligent building system is developed, it should be expected that:

• Less rather than more systems technology is required;
  
• it will then be easier to operate;
  
• it will be less expensive in capital cost terms;
  
• it will be easier to commission;
  
• it will work;
  
• it will provide coherent reports to prove that it works;
  
• it will be easier to maintain;
  
• it will be less expensive to maintain.

Savings can arise in a number of areas. Integrated systems are currently the exception rather than the norm, but IP addressability is gaining increasing recognition and more suppliers are offering IP versions or IP as standard capability. With a very small number of projects completed to date, the following analysis is presented as a qualitative assessment of the elements that are likely to yield capital cost savings compared with the conventional approach.

Independent systems integrators should be able to offer a client at least a capital-cost-neutral solution, taking account of their resource costs, their bespoke but open-protocol software, commissioning and training etc. These costs will need to be balanced against savings in other systems, identified through the rationalisation and integration of building services monitoring and control systems. The major ongoing benefits that accrue, including reduced operations and maintenance costs, and the capability for easy churn, should follow at no additional cost.